THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23545/18 Oleg Aleksandrovich SMETANIN against Russia and 2 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 October 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, and the applicant s ’ replies to these declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) . In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

The Government submitted declaration s with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application s .

The Government acknowledged the use of metal cages in courtrooms . In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants ’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention (see appended table). They offered to pay the applicants the amount s detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount s would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them , from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases .

The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declaration s .

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision .

The Court finds that, following the applicants ’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case s should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application s .

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention .

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 November 2019 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention ( use of metal cages in courtrooms )

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s acceptance

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [i]

23545/18

12/05/2018

Oleg Aleksandrovich Smetanin

19/02/1965

Geraskin Eduard Olegovich

Moscow

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the excessive length of the appellate review of the applicant ’ s detention orders by the Moscow City Court, with the appellate review proceedings having taken between 30 and 50 days .

14/01/2019

23/03/2019

4,500

29564/18

11/06/2018

Viktor Yuryevich Sverkunov

14/01/1979

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain abo ut poor conditions of transport;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant starting on 17/01/2018 between several detention facilities in the Zabaykalskiy Region by an overcrowded van and train and his detention in poor conditions for several days during the transport in transit detention facilities (IZ-1 and IZ-2 of the Zabaykalskiy Region) .

29/01/2019

15/03/2019

4,000

32510/18

02/07/2018

Anvar Urazgaleyevich Kaldamanov

28/05/1987

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions in convoy cells of the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi. Multiple occasions between 26/04/2017 and 06/04/2018. Severe overcrowding;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport and placement in a metal cage in court hearings .

29/01/2019

09/04/2019

4,000

[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.